Slashdot Mirror

Conventional airplanes derive their ability to fly from moving air to generate lift. Their propulsion therefore is at the mercy of atmospheric conditions. If the wind is too high or atmospheric conditions too problematic for any reason, they're grounded.

An Ioncraft by contrast, derives its propulsion from self generated (Positive and negative) ion cloud attraction and repulsion that occurs around its positively and negatively charged electrodes, so it generates its own means of propulsion, making it immune, or if you want "extremely resistant," to gusts of wind or other atmospheric conditions.

An extremely well written paper on this was published a number of years ago explaining this mechanism.

Googling "Ice Ages coincide with the passage of the Solar System through the spiral arms of our galaxy" retrieves you a lot of links. See for instance the first lines of these two:

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/ShavivChapter.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.2777.pdf (2009)

Many more there, such as this on dinosaur extinction:

http://www.dinosaurhome.com/root-causes-of-extinction-events-219.html

Fully Countering Trusting Trust Through Diverse Double-Compiling

Fully Countering Trusting Trust Through Diverse Double-Compiling

Fully Countering Trusting Trust Through Diverse Double-Compiling

"Medium.com" is one of those aggregator sites. Don't link to them. Link to the actual paper. Thank you.

They had to use the Palomar 200 inch telescope to make this work. There aren't many big telescopes in the world, and they're booked months in advance. They got a few hours of observing for one night, and good results. But they'd need a lot more observing time on big scopes to do their survey.

why just criticize without adding anything to the conversation.

The elliptic-curve algorithm is much slower for future quantum based attacks. So it's future-proofing, which is required if you want your secrets to stay secret.

You could get similar results by adopting a 15000 bit RSA key... but that's getting rather large.

A paper with some classical and quantum time estimates, Elliptic-Curve vs RSA: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0301141v2.pdf

The suspicion that part of social compatibility can be explained through superficial genetic traits has been explored before. The bibliography on page 21 of the totally free and unpaywalled arxiv PDF has a few citations that seem pretty similar.

That being said, I'm not so sure about some of their conclusions; they make it sound like there are purely mechanistic reasons why we seek out the friends we do. Consider the following:

The implications of the finding regarding homophily on genes related to linoleic acid metabolism are unclear. Linoleic acid is a precursor for substances involved in a broad range of important bodily processes (ranging from adipocyte function to bone formation to the regulation of gene expression) (42), and the component genes in the pathway are related to the metabolism of cholesterol, steroids, and various ingested substances, though it is intriguing that linoleic acid compounds might be used by moths as pheromones (43). Possibly, this pathway is related to the restrained consumption or the specific metabolism of various foodstuffs, traits for which homophily may be advantageous and heterophily self-injurious.

Personally, I think this is patently absurd and that there is no way this could influence personality or human behaviour. It seems to me to be more likely that the linoleic acid genes either have some wildly obscure indirect effect on personality that we can detect, or that they're simply inherited by chance with something that does.

It would have been wonderful if people here actually bothered to RTFA so we could argue about whether or not biochemically-inclined sociologists are out to destroy civilization by being too narrow-minded. On the plus side, this is a biology paper that was submitted to Arxiv, which means that it probably is having trouble getting into a major journal (i.e. it's very possibly being regarded as crap by journal editors due to its weird conclusions.)

Whenever I read something about the "Impact factor" I now only reference this article

These data corroborate previous hypotheses: using journal rank as an assessment tool is bad scientific practice.
Moreover, the data lead us to argue that any journal rank (not only the currently-favored Impact Factor) would have this
negative impact.

The "Impact factor" can be manipulated, is non-reproducible, and therefore, any scientist should feel insulted by its use to rate his or any other scientific work.

Are the pulses from pulsars visible from all directions, or just from the plane of rotation?

Not from all directions, but not always from the plane of rotation either. The pulse sweeps around at a fixed angle from the plane of rotation, which may not be 90 degrees.

But you're right: if we went far enough, we'd stop seeing some pulsars, and start seeing some new ones. So if we start travelling more than a thousand light years or so, we'll need another means of navigation.

The original paper only talks about using it as a means of navigation within the solar system, though, for which it's perfectly fine, and much more precise than existing methods.

The abstract of the paper (unpaywalled version) has a better summary.

We demonstrate how observations of pulsars can be used to help navigate a spacecraft travelling in the solar system. We make use of archival observations of millisecond pulsars from the Parkes radio telescope in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method and highlight issues, such as pulsar spin irregularities, which need to be accounted for. We show that observations of four millisecond pulsars every seven days using a realistic X-ray telescope on the spacecraft throughout a journey from Earth to Mars can lead to position determinations better than ~20 km and velocity measurements with a precision of ~0.1 m/s.

In other words, they're not just saying that it's a theoretical possibility. They're saying "this is the type of telescope you need", "this is how you have to process the data", and "this is how precisely you can measure your position". Next step, I guess, is building the hardware.

I don't know if you are trolling, just making things up, or really need to get a better source of information.

Look up the actual original specs of the Hubble (e.g. this although there are better sources behind paywalls). They were hoping for a resolution on the order of 0.1 arcseonds. This is within a factor of 2 of the theoretical resolution limit of about 0.05 arcseconds for Hubble's mirror size at 500 nm. Latter upgrades pushed this down to about 0.06-0.073 arcseconds. The repaired Hubble was on spec as far as resolving power (if anything, higher resolution modes were less affected, as it was the wide field modes using the edge of the optics more that struggled), and upgrades exceeded those specs. But it would not have exceeded the resolution shown here of Magellan with that mirror. It was not about the detector being out of date.

You should be able to find plenty of talk that even before Hubble launched that ground based observation was started to exceed the resolution limit of Hubble. The main thing it had going for at the time was that Hubble could see faint objects while the high resolution ground techniques required much brighter objects. But as time went on, that limit dropped, and the list of things that Hubble could do that ground based on observations could grew shorter. This isn't just a recent issue, but has been a continual question in the whole development and operation history of HST when trying to determine if the expense was worth it.

And the fact that you try to associate adaptive optics as some software trick that fills in data with the same signal to noise ratio shows you fundamentally do not understand what it does. You should at least look at one of the many explanations on various telescope websites (instead of waisting time repeating it here). It is a mechanical process that affects how the light is gathered, increasing the signal to noise ratio (using your crude analogy).

Neurons don't communicate in an analogue fashion—they send digital pulses of the same magnitude periodically, with more rapid pulses indicating more signal. This is both more robust and more effective at preventing over-adaptation. When researchers figured out how to mimic the imperfections in the biological digital system, their neural networks got significantly better. Because they'd been working under the assumption that an exact analogue value was going to be superior than a digital value, they hadn't considered this possibility.

If and when we do create a synthetic mind that is humanlike, there is no reason to believe it would be anything other than a completely innocent newborn. How it acts depends on how we treat it, just like with any other person. This is not exactly a new concept in science fiction.

As usual, the paper makes more sense than the press release, but is less grandiose in its claims.

It's a fairly technical result that finds some appeals to the asymptotic equipartition property lead to too-strong claims, compared to a more precise analysis.

Papers behind paywalls referencing non-public data.

If you want to pick on some field of science for doing this, astronomy is a bad choice. Just about every paper in astronomy gets put up on arxiv.org, where it's available free of charge. And the data from government-funded telescopes, while usually held secret for 12-18 months to give the astronomer a chance to publish first (and hence an incentive to do the work of operating the telescope in the first place), is made public after that time. This is usually done on a per-telescope basis: for example, the data archive for the last telescope I used is here.

All this is so publicly available and known to anyone who works in the field, that when you say things like...

Where is the data? Not released by researchers. Where are the papers? All hidden behind a paywall nobody can afford. Where is the science?

...I find it very hard to believe that you have made a good-faith effort to find the papers and the data, rather than making up unfounded complaints - which is, after all, easier than actually doing science.

My bet is that the need for dark matter will disappear when relativistic effects are properly taken into account.

There seems to be the belief among astrophysicists that general relativity can be safely ignored when speeds are low. I'm not so sure.

The situation you are talking about, where speeds are low, concerns special relativity, and it's obvious that low speeds do not make much of a difference. This isn't some "guess" that astrophysicists are making. It's a direct result of what special (and therefore) general relativity says. And astrophysicists do use general relativity.

Why invent exotic matter when the right combination of dust could be the answer?

Simply put, because baryonic matter (ie. dust) radiates. This article would be titled, "Why our instruments are sensitive enough to detect all that dust that's affecting galaxies and superclusters rotation" if it was dust.

Here's a recent summary paper on the evidence for nonbaryonic dark matter. Dust has, alas, been hypothesized, tested, and rejected.

And I bet that at some point during the last few decades of thousands of observations, theories, and calculations by thousands of astronomers, physicists, and mathematicians (some with Nobel prizes, no less), someone would have already thought of this if it was an issue.

They're not gods (and there's no Nobel prize for mathematics).

And there has been some movement towards using relativity instead of dark matter to explain galactic rotation curves:

General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter

Evidence suggests that scaling quantum computing to the large number of qubits required to decrypt 2kbit RSA would be extraordinarily expensive, if possible at all. The largest quantum computer[1] built so far outside of secret institutions has, I believe, 14 qubits (I may be a little out-of-date, but not by a long way). Scaling has occurred at a fairly constant linear rate of about 1 qubit per annum since the earliest machines were produced. There's no signs of an exponential take-off the way there was with conventional computing hardware, which suggests that the expense of scaling to larger and larger quantum computers doesn't get decrease the way it does with silicon.

Some data points:

1998: 3 qubits
2000: 5 qubits
2001: 7 qubits (largest achieved to date with single atom containing all qubits in different degrees of freedom)
2005: 8 qubits
2006: 12 qubits
2011: 14 qubits

This is the best private industry can do. I'd be surprised if the NSA were doing more than a factor of 10 better. To crack 2048-bit RSA, about 3000 qubits would be required[2], or about 20 times my best guess as the limit of what the NSA could have achieved. Besides, Shor's algorithm is not instant: even if it's faster than any classical algorithm, it's still third-order polynomial on the number of bits in the input, and quantum computers don't perform individual operations particularly quickly, so even if we assume the NSA has managed to make a quantum computer that's a thousand times faster per operation than existing private systems, to factor a 2048-bit RSA key on a 3,000 qubit computer would take about 8.6 billion operations running at about 10-100us each, which is to say approximately 1 to 10 days of time on the (enormously expensive) system (of which they almost certainly only have one, which will therefore have a very long prioritized queue of jobs waiting for it).

And upgrade to 4096 bits, and they'll need a quantum computer with 6,000 qubits, and the job will take somewhere between a week and three months to complete.

[1] I'm excluding so-called quantum annealing computers from this, e.g. various systems produced by D-Wave, because they cannot be used to run Shor's algorithm, so are not a threat to RSA. This is not so much an entry into the debate as to whether or not they should be classified as quantum computers, but a practical decision based on the subject under discussion.
[2] traditionally, this would be 4096 (twice the number of bits in the input), but this arxiv paper claims 1.5 x bits in input or fewer is achievable through a method I don't really understand

There does not appear to exist any single piece of evidence that DLP (discrete logarithm problem)
will benefit from algorithms running in polynomial time. The recent work of Antoine Joux that they
are referring to (one of which I assume to be http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4244v1.pdf) provides
improvements of quasi-polynomial agorithms for breaking DLP. But there is no reason to believe
that these improvements can lead to a polynomial-time attack. And as long as this does not happen,
those attacks can still be defeated by increasing the key size.

Replace the continuous Fourier Transform with an iterative Fourier transform

It doesn't matter. The discrete transform approximates the continuous transform; in the case we're discussing we can in fact calculate the continuous transform analytically. If one were to use the discrete transform with an explicit numerical example basically the same result would be obtained (down to numerical error modulo the window function, zero padding and discretization artifacts). That result being a distribution of non-zero amplitudes in frequency space rather than a delta function.

"No definite single frequency" is not equal to "no discoverable single frequency"

There is no single frequency, discoverable or otherwise. The physical reality is that a finite wave packet such as a shout or an electron must be characterized by a distribution of frequencies rather than a single frequency. It is impossible for a single frequency alone to produce a finite wave train. There are two ways to get a finite wave packet, either you have a window of some kind, which creates overtones in the frequency space, or you sum up lots of higher frequency waves, which amounts to the same thing.

The whole reason I brought this up is relevant to TFA: in my opinion the above approach gives the simplest, most accurate portrayal of why the uncertainty relation is a part of nature and not a technological limitation of some kind (we aren't "missing" any information which actually exists). To reiterate: 1) regardless of quantum mechanics, finite wave-trains create "uncertainty," that is a distribution of values which may itself be known exactly, and 2) quantum mechanical systems are finite wave phenomena. Therefore they exhibit what we call "uncertainty" - a distribution of values which can be sampled. Repeated sampling demonstrates that quantum mechanics predicts these distributions with extreme accuracy and precision.

Anyway, uncertainty is actually an important part of quantum mechanical technologies, more than a barrier. Especially in living systems, which use QM in various ways.

Actually, the general evolution of binary stars tends to cause them to get closer together more often than break apart or "float away" (which may be nonsensical depending on what you meant...). E.g this paper and other work shows tendencies of shrinking orbits even when not taking into account gravitational waves or frictional effects from two stars getting too close in a high eccentric orbit.

TFA gave a link to http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/colliding-exploding-stars-may-have-created-all-gold-earth , which led to another link at http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3960 , which I have dl-ed the PDF at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.3960v1.pdf? but no matter how I search, I couldn't find any mention of the word 'gold' anywhere

Can someone please point us to the real article, please ?

TFA gave a link to http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/colliding-exploding-stars-may-have-created-all-gold-earth , which led to another link at http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3960 , which I have dl-ed the PDF at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.3960v1.pdf? but no matter how I search, I couldn't find any mention of the word 'gold' anywhere

Can someone please point us to the real article, please ?

I thought our heavy elements came mostly from the short-lived first generation of hypergiant hydrogen stars going supernova.

Supernova nucleosynthesis is still the main mechanism for creation of elements heavier than Fe. The guys report that they think other type of events may lead to the creation of heavy elements and they believe we already witnessed such an event

(Are those genes selfish? Because if so, this) may be a classic case of resolving a Braess's paradox by removing a trigger for selfish behaviour.

It has to do with non-linear systems that have many points of equilibrium (Braess's paradox involves another example of the same, except the equilibrium is considered in the Nash sense).

A quotation from the arxiv paper that says what's all about:

For example, a damaged power grid undergoing a large blackout may still have other stable states in which no blackout would occur, but the perturbed system may not be able to reach those states spontaneously. We suggest that many large-scale failures are determined by the convergence of the network to a “bad” state rather than by the unavailability of “good” states.

The first link is a "journalistic rendering", too scarce in details. The second link is the abstract.
Let's hope the arxiv preprint will be good enough.

Corporations may not be people, but they are a form of intelligent artificial life, so it's no wonder they expect equal rights.

It's an interesting machine, with it's shutter. Here's a direct link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.1334.pdf I hate exaggeration in sci news, (50 nm)^3 is a minimum spot size of about 10,000,000 atoms, or 50,000 of atoms if they do a single atom thick deposition. Also, Standard FIBs can already deposit gold and other things using a deposition gas injector, with similar resolution and speed, and no aperture to clog. A Russian group drew images of characters in a similar way in 2006, with apertures, with the same resolution. ("Atom 'Pinhole Camera' with Nanometer Resolution" [Russian translation: actually a pinhole lithographic projector], V.I.Balykin et al, link: www.researchgate.net/publication/226645891_Atom_pinhole_camera_with_nanometer_resolution/file/d912f50a8a891ad5e2.pdf)

Since i stumbled back then over a related preprint:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4595

Everything which needs to be said is said there.

I am pretty sure that this 7-month-old arXiv preprint corresponds to the Nature Communications paper. The titles and author lists are identical, but the abstract deviates, so who knows what changes it went through in revision (I don't have access to the official paper either, even at the university where I work). But presumably it covers the same ground, and it looks like all of the figures from the official are in the preprint.

(Yo, fuck Nature Publishing Group.)

For anyone interested, I believe this is the article TFA refers to:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130628/ncomms3067/full/ncomms3067.html

A preprint appears to be available on arXiv:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739

Here is a paper.

this is quite off-topic, really, but anyway: standard crypto is more than enough for (almost?) all applications, at least for now. what we really need is more people using what we have already. moving right along...

the problem with your scheme is the "propogated locally" part; note e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem. but it doesn't need to be that hard.

if there is quantum comms but no quantum computer (or other magical crypto-breaking device), you can of course just use classical public-key crypto over a quantum channel to reap the mitm detection benefit as a bonus. easy.

if, however, your adversaries have a real quantum computer (with a lot of qubits), you need either a new, harder classical one-way function (factoring and elliptic curve are both poly-time on a QC), or a quantum key distribution scheme. the former is quite likely impossible, but there are a few of the latter, e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105032v2.pdf

Doesn't everybody remember last year, when multiple reports came out from sociologists saying that food prices cause riots, and that food prices worldwide were expected to peak in the summer of 2013? Headlines like 'We have until August 2013 before riots sweep the globe', and 'We have one year before everything explodes' -- that doesn't ring a bell for anyone else?

Social unrest is correlated to the price of necessary commodities. When the poor cannot afford basic necessities, they have no choice but to get violent. Because of crop failures last year, this year is primed for social unrest EVERYWHERE.

The Arxiv paper demonstrating the correlation, based on data from the 2008 food riots.
An article warning us from last year. And another. And another.

Sociologists have known this was coming. Governments should have known this was coming. It's going to be a brutal, bloody summer. Get ready.

This wouldn't be the first attempt at METI. Alexander Zaitsev has sent a number of messages to various stars including Gliese 581 using his 70 meter RT-70 radiotescope located in Yevpatoria, Ukraine. He is the chief advocate for METI among professional astronomers and makes his case well I think.

I respectfully disagree. He seems frightfully naïve to me.

Why does he think that no other civilisation has considered being the first to break the silence? Does he think that he is that much smarter than them? And while it may be true that asteroid avoidance is a beacon, who is to say that another mechanism may not be developed soon, especially if radio silence is considered more valuable as a means of ensuring our survival than asteroid detection? We may have spent the last 100 years shouting out our existence to the cosmos, but we are rapidly getting to the point where high-powered, omnidirectional broadcast transmissions are neither necessary nor efficient.

So silence may soon be the norm, and I for one much prefer it to his starry-eyed faith in "reason" (which means nothing if the alien values are not compatible with our continued survival). He may feel lonely, but we still have much to learn from each other and our local environment to keep us busy before we need to risk encounters with another civilization.

That is a myth more or less. Those transmissions would be damn lucky to make it to Pluto let alone another star. Maybe to Alpha Centauri if there is a kilometer scale dish there.

Transmitting a signal to another star is non-trivial, uses a huge amount of power, and isn't likely to happen with unintentional leakage. You pretty much have to either aim a beam at a target or have an omnidirectional transmitter with truly immense power.

James Benford, along with his twin brother Gregory Benford (Timescape etc) has written some fascinating papers on the subject from the POV of the sender and the receiver. Very well thought out stuff and required reading for any amateur METI projects. But this won't be the first intentional METI transmission anyway. Alexander Zaitsev has sent a number of messages at various targets already using a 70 meter radio telescope in the Ukraine. Those were relatively brief transmissions though. This project will be transmitting continuously. A pretty big difference, although one that would only matter to a pathetic, cowardly species.

That is a myth more or less. Those transmissions would be damn lucky to make it to Pluto let alone another star. Maybe to Alpha Centauri if there is a kilometer scale dish there.

Transmitting a signal to another star is non-trivial, uses a huge amount of power, and isn't likely to happen with unintentional leakage. You pretty much have to either aim a beam at a target or have an omnidirectional transmitter with truly immense power.

James Benford, along with his twin brother Gregory Benford (Timescape etc) has written some fascinating papers on the subject from the POV of the sender and the receiver. Very well thought out stuff and required reading for any amateur METI projects. But this won't be the first intentional METI transmission anyway. Alexander Zaitsev has sent a number of messages at various targets already using a 70 meter radio telescope in the Ukraine. Those were relatively brief transmissions though. This project will be transmitting continuously. A pretty big difference, although one that would only matter to a pathetic, cowardly species.

Those radio broadcasts are unlikely to even make it to Alpha Centauri with reasonable sized recieving antennas. With planetary scale antennas it might be possible. The military radars are another story, but they would be randomly aimed and relatively infrequent and not transmitting any sort of coherent message.

This wouldn't be the first attempt at METI. Alexander Zaitsev has sent a number of messages to various stars including Gliese 581 using his 70 meter RT-70 radiotescope located in Yevpatoria, Ukraine. He is the chief advocate for METI among professional astronomers and makes his case well I think.

His messages were relatively brief however and are unlikely to be noticed even if there is an intelligent civ at one of his chosen targets. What would new is the idea of a full time, dedicated transmitter sending messages out 24/7/365 aimed for long periods, like say 6-12 months, at a single target so that if anyone is there listening there would be at least some chance of them noticing our signal.

"Why is it called "microlensing" anyway?"

You got me curious, and I thought the Wikipedia article would have the answer, but instead I'm copying this from the talk page on microlensing by somebody who claims to have worked as an astronomer:

I've tried to fix the fuzzyness of the definition of microlensing with a new one: Microlensing is the subset of gravitational lensing whose variations in time can be measured. Typically, this means that the lens mass must be small enough that it will cross its own Einstein ring radius in less than the time it takes for a graduate student to finish a PhD thesis. The EROS collaboration is analysing our own and MACHOs data for evidence of very long time scale events of order 100s or 1000s of years (see sec. 5.6 of [1]). Although these may not be confirmed as microlensing events (rather than some other very long time-scale variability), the non-detection of these events would allow a limit on dark matter by 100-1000 Mo MACHOs. Any event where the lens mass is so big and far away that it takes millions of years to cross its einstein ring radius, and thus changes too slowly in time to be studied in the time domain, is a "macrolens".

I also disagree with the four definitions by MDAstronomer. It is not true that any lensing event with unresolved images is microlensing. A galaxy can lens a quasar, but have the images be too close to be resolved. This is not microlensing. Likewise,lensing by a compact object does not describe microlensing. "Any" gravitational lens must be physically smaller or about the same size as its own einstein radius to cause any measurable lensing effect. That is why we do not see any lensing effects from the Moon. It is so close that its Einstein radius is tiny. However, if the moon were a few kiloparsecs away, its einstein radius would be larger than its physical radius and it could be a perfectly ordinary microlens. The supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way is a compact object, but it cannot be a microlens... its einstein radius is too big for any changes in lensing to be monitored in time. It could in principle be a macrolens if there were a quasar right behind it. The microlensing at the edges of gravitationally lensed quasars is called microlensing because it causes time-varying effects in the apparent flux of the images. This has been significant because it interferes with attempts to use these gravitational lenses to measure the Hubble Constant.

The time-varying nature of a microlens is the key to all of its observations. And the need to take over large blocks of telescope time to do microlensing has revolutionized time-domain astronomy in general, in part through a bureaucratic reorganization of Telescope Allocation Committees and the advent of dedicated telescopes. There have been great resulting changes not only in microlensing but in searches for supernovae, asteroids, variable stars.

None of the various types of microlensing observations (photometric brightenning, astrometric shift, interferometric visibility reduction due to image splitting, shifts in color, spectrum, or variability amplitude) are strong enough to determine a microlensing event from a single observation. All of them require detecting some change in time, if only because there are plenty of natural causes that can mimic any one of the shifts for a single measurement. For example, how could one seperate a star which was split into two images from an ordinary binary star without time-domain information?

I disagree with Mike's splitting of lensing into strong, weak and microlensing. A lens is strong if it is within one Einstein radius of the line of sight to the source, and weak otherwise. Nearly all photometric microlenses are strong lenses, but astrometric lensing is much more sensitive to weak lensing than photometric lensing. Ed

This is an interesting read. Informed opinions tend to be more useful. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4904v1.pdf - the "quantum" results can be obtained by a completely classical calculation.

the machine is really just a quantum annealer. you still need real computers to do your solving for things like computational quantum thermodynamics but where the D-Wave comes in, its really just there to assist the solver cluster with a more terse or efficient algorythm. Not bashing it, seeing as some of their jobs run months or years if the D-Wave manages to carve 20-30% off the time of a solver run, then you just saved ~80 days of work.

as to naysayers who think D-Wave isnt in a true quantum state, heres a research paper on the matter http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4595
Simulations of quantum versus classical annealers show that a classical one has a fairly uniform probability of solving a problem correctly; a quantum device should instead have a low probability of success at solving hard problems, and a high probability of success solving easy ones. This is what D-Wave is shown to do.

disclosure: i work for a large engineering firm that handles computational fluid thermodynamic and finite element analysis simulation as a service. Id be speechless to have one of these ajacent to my datacenter.

Gravitational lensing surveys have pretty much ruled out this Dark Matter explanation for black holes (or any other dark compact objects) with masses > about 10^-7 Solar Masses, and it is very hard to see how smaller black holes could have ever formed.

The really silly thing about the dust-up with AMS is that the PAMELA experiment (later confirmed by Fermi) made the exact same measurement and is credited with the discovery. AMS just re-did it with smaller error bars. Here's the original PAMELA paper from 2009: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7238/full/nature07942.html (preprint here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4995 ) The dark matter interpretation isn't even new. All AMS has brought is smaller error bars.

Hybrid machines seem to be the way to go, pure quantum computers are cumbersome for such things as addition.

100s years? At what speed? According to this article:http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610030
You can't go even close to c. Even as 'low' as 0.3c could be dangerous. This limits the number of stars, which might have suitable planets even more.

The original paper, "BEER analysis of Kepler and CoRoT light curves: I. Discovery of Kepler-76b: A hot Jupiter with evidence for superrotation," is here.

As a follow up, I'll note that I work in one of the arXiv-heavy fields (astronomy), and I never read any of the journals - nor does anybody I know. Instead we check for new articles ono the arXiv in the morning, where they appear the day after they were uploaded by the authors. There are usually 10-50 such papers per day in my field, depending on how narrow I want to be, and looking for interesting papers based on their titles and abstracts only takes a few minutes per day.

The immediacy this implies is a huge advantage which greatly speeds up the rate at which science is done. For example, a while ago a controversial paper was published on the arXiv claiming evidence for an exotic theory, and after 3 weeks 3 independent teams had attempted to reproduce their results and found no evidence for the claim. This turnaround is completely unprecedented in fields which rely on traditional journals, where one must expect to wait 6 months or so for the paper to be published.

While we don't read journals in my field, we still submit our papers to them, and do our best to have them published, because the journals still provide one important service: They coordinate the process of peer review. Sure, the peers are just other researchers like us, who do not get paid for their reviews, just like the journals do not pay us for our articles (in fact we have to pay quite a lot in page charges when our papers are published), but as it is, journals are the only way peer review is organized. Or put another way, peer review is the thin string in which the life of the traditional journals hangs.

The ideal solution for us in arXiv-dominated fields would be dedicated peer review services which would take over the role of coordinating peer review, but do so for free (after all, that coordination is less work than the free peer review itself), and which would digitally sign papers that have passed review. ArXiv could then display an icon on the pages of these papers, indicating which peer review service has signed the paper.

If this were put into place, and managed to get over the initial hurdle of building up a good reputation, then the traditional journals could be banished completely from our field.